You can be sure of three things in life – death, taxes, and the American Civil Liberties Union will go out of its way to manufacture offense and use this tactic to try to rewrite the Constitution the way it thinks it should read. Thus, we get the ACLU suing various St. Tammany Parish governments over a display of a religious icon in Slidell City Court.
The ACLU sued after the Court refused to remove the display, an eastern Orthodox rendition of Jesus holding up what appears to be the New Testament with the inscription, “To Know Peace, Obey These Laws.” It only took them about a decade to decide there was something wrong with the display and already seem to be on the defensive when their spokesman asserted, “We did not file this lawsuit because the ACLU is anti-religion” (yeah, right).
Fortunately, the indispensable Alliance Defense Fund is on the job with one of Louisiana’s underappreciated gems Mike Johnson defending pro bono, so taxpayers won’t spend a penny on this nonsense. How it will turn out is anybody’s guess.
No doubt this is the kind of case likely to head eventually to the U.S. Supreme Court which is only slightly more conservative in the past couple of years even with a couple of recent Pres. George W. Bush appointees sitting on it. Further, not much in the way of religious expression has been ruled upon by the Court recently, the most recent being the asinine “Bong Hits 4 Jesus” prank which the Court tailored narrowly along the lines of free speech that meant their ruling against that speech basically did not touch the question of religious expression.
Hopefully the Court will see through the ACLU’s blather that the icon conveys the impression that only Christians will receive justice (the figure is not even identified as Christ, and surely the ACLU knows that secular law is not the same as that from the Bible and law enforcement and judges are sworn to uphold the former). But it may be a couple of years or more before a final decision somewhere in the federal judiciary is rendered.
4.7.07
Independence Day, 2007
This column publishes every Sunday through Thursday after noon (sometimes even before; maybe even after sundown on busy days) U.S. Central Time except whenever a significant national holiday falls on the Monday through Friday associated with the otherwise-usual publication on the previous day (unless it is Independence Day or Christmas when it is the day on which the holiday is observed by the U.S. government). In my opinion, there are six of these: New Year's Day, Memorial Day, Independence Day, Veterans' Day, Thanksgiving Day, and Christmas.
With Wednesday, Jul. 4 being Independence Day, I invite you to explore the link above.
With Wednesday, Jul. 4 being Independence Day, I invite you to explore the link above.
3.7.07
Govt immobilism not bad, but not likely next year in LA
One review of the recently completed regular session of the Louisiana Legislature ponders the part increased partisan behavior in the chambers played, and will play in the future, in legislating. The author muses that the “all-or-nothing approach portends a new era of hard-core divisiveness along party lines that Republicans seem to want, perhaps anticipating a GOP takeover of at least the House of Representatives and, very likely, the Governor's Mansion. But what happens to [likely top job winner] Gov. [Bobby] Jindal when the Democrats, who next year will likely hold a lot more House seats than the GOP currently holds, decide to respond in kind?”
This statement ignores a couple of important considerations. First, it doesn’t seem to acknowledge that there were very valid and important reasons why House Republicans did what they could, which turned out not to be much, to slow down the ill-advised budget-making going on by state Democrats. Little was done in reversing the state government’s decades-old disastrous affair with populism and liberalism and one has to give the GOP credit for standing up at least and registering significant, if ineffective, opposition. To sit idly by and watch an accident that can be prevented is a disservice to your constituents and the state, and even a shirking of moral duty, and if it takes a partisan, conflictual approach to prevent it, this is to be applauded.
Unfortunately, many commentators and, worse, politicians in this state don’t have a genuine understanding of the theory behind the republican, tri-partite system of significant separation of powers that is the model for the federal and state governments in the U.S. It is designed to be largely immobilized when lack of consensus exists, under the notion that possessing sufficient majorities to get things done shows that a majority of interests feels it has protected it members enough from government power against their interests. Roughly speaking (and only roughly because we know this is not always true), if enough people think it’s the right thing to do, it probably is, and thus in our system of government it gets done.
Further, these unfortunates then lament the times when government isn’t “doing” things, failing to understand that failure to make policy in certain areas is a sign of the polity’s health, that the lack of necessary consensus around a policy area is a warning sign that something risky that could injure a significant portion of the polity may occur. So if the Legislature grinds to a halt with a Republican House, Democrat Senate, and GOP governor, fine, because the path its been going on has not been a salutary one in any event and doing nothing is better than continuing on it.
But, and secondly, it’s not likely to come to this. Consider that, as weak of a governor as Kathleen Blanco was, she still managed considerable success with her generally overall harmful budget priorities by using the powers formal and informal of her office. Now envision Jindal in her position, swept, as all indicators seem to point, into office with a massive mandate, pulling with him a GOP House majority and a couple of pickups in the Senate, and imagine what he will be able to do.
While a putative GOP majority in the House will be slender, and the Senate still firmly in Democrat hands, do not forget that the governor’s major power hits far closer to home to the populist liberals that will almost exclusively comprise Democrats than it does the reformer conservatives that will make up the vast majority of Republicans: the ability to control spending. While Republicans are not averse to throwing some money around, their fundamentally different ideological view that government is to redistribute the people’s resources only in the last resort gives a governor reduced leverage of threat to use vetoes to control their behavior.
However, the entire worldview of Democrats rests on government getting as much of the people’s resources as possible and then redistributing it to their favorite groups and causes. This gives the governor’s decisions on spending much more prominence in their political worlds. And it’s a safe bet that Jindal will not hesitate at all in the use of this power to make enough Democrat opponents knuckle under, at least in his first session.
By its nature, government has the potential to do far more harm than good so a stalemated government is not at all undesirable. Yet given current political trends this is unlikely to occur next year in any event in Louisiana.
This statement ignores a couple of important considerations. First, it doesn’t seem to acknowledge that there were very valid and important reasons why House Republicans did what they could, which turned out not to be much, to slow down the ill-advised budget-making going on by state Democrats. Little was done in reversing the state government’s decades-old disastrous affair with populism and liberalism and one has to give the GOP credit for standing up at least and registering significant, if ineffective, opposition. To sit idly by and watch an accident that can be prevented is a disservice to your constituents and the state, and even a shirking of moral duty, and if it takes a partisan, conflictual approach to prevent it, this is to be applauded.
Unfortunately, many commentators and, worse, politicians in this state don’t have a genuine understanding of the theory behind the republican, tri-partite system of significant separation of powers that is the model for the federal and state governments in the U.S. It is designed to be largely immobilized when lack of consensus exists, under the notion that possessing sufficient majorities to get things done shows that a majority of interests feels it has protected it members enough from government power against their interests. Roughly speaking (and only roughly because we know this is not always true), if enough people think it’s the right thing to do, it probably is, and thus in our system of government it gets done.
Further, these unfortunates then lament the times when government isn’t “doing” things, failing to understand that failure to make policy in certain areas is a sign of the polity’s health, that the lack of necessary consensus around a policy area is a warning sign that something risky that could injure a significant portion of the polity may occur. So if the Legislature grinds to a halt with a Republican House, Democrat Senate, and GOP governor, fine, because the path its been going on has not been a salutary one in any event and doing nothing is better than continuing on it.
But, and secondly, it’s not likely to come to this. Consider that, as weak of a governor as Kathleen Blanco was, she still managed considerable success with her generally overall harmful budget priorities by using the powers formal and informal of her office. Now envision Jindal in her position, swept, as all indicators seem to point, into office with a massive mandate, pulling with him a GOP House majority and a couple of pickups in the Senate, and imagine what he will be able to do.
While a putative GOP majority in the House will be slender, and the Senate still firmly in Democrat hands, do not forget that the governor’s major power hits far closer to home to the populist liberals that will almost exclusively comprise Democrats than it does the reformer conservatives that will make up the vast majority of Republicans: the ability to control spending. While Republicans are not averse to throwing some money around, their fundamentally different ideological view that government is to redistribute the people’s resources only in the last resort gives a governor reduced leverage of threat to use vetoes to control their behavior.
However, the entire worldview of Democrats rests on government getting as much of the people’s resources as possible and then redistributing it to their favorite groups and causes. This gives the governor’s decisions on spending much more prominence in their political worlds. And it’s a safe bet that Jindal will not hesitate at all in the use of this power to make enough Democrat opponents knuckle under, at least in his first session.
By its nature, government has the potential to do far more harm than good so a stalemated government is not at all undesirable. Yet given current political trends this is unlikely to occur next year in any event in Louisiana.
2.7.07
Blanco likely to emphasize politics in veto choices
Is there really much doubt that Democrat Gov. Kathleen Blanco will veto few, if any, tax break bills passed by the Louisiana Legislature that go into effect before or after Dec. 31, 2007? Because for her it is all about a “legacy” first, her party’s fortunes second, and the state’s fiscal health last.
In the waning days, even hours, of the just-concluded regular session, a number of bills were passed grating tax breaks that would take effect only after Blanco was out of office. Why don’t they take effect for 2007, if they are so laudable? Because Blanco decreed that she would wield a veto pen to prevent more being taken than $150 million in tax cuts, out of a budgetary surplus of $3.5 billion in a budget that ended up spending about $32 billion. She later averred that she would accept about $180 million and the best estimate that exists for the actual amount applied for this year is $189 million.
But including all tax cuts puts the amount closer to $500 million. If she vetoes none, this implies she expects state revenues to grow by $300 million or so above and beyond inflationary increases at current service levels. It may or may not happen. While tax cuts to a certain point generally eventually provide more government revenue, targeted tax cuts such as these are less effective and it does take time for the economy, spurred by the cuts, to grow. This is why Blanco needed not to spend so much of the surplus on recurring items of dubious need.
Without a great deal of certainty that such revenue increases will materialize (and at this point the best guess is that they are not likely to do so), the prudent thing for Blanco to do would be to disallow them in order to prevent a future fiscal crisis hampering the state’s next governor and legislators. However, she has three incentives to disregard that course of action.
First, to be charitable, Blanco has had a dismal record as governor. She faltered badly in handling the 2005 hurricane disasters and their aftermath, and more generally has done little to improve Louisiana’s quality of life. Going out with a bunch of tax cutting to her credit will raise people’s opinion of her and might cause historians to look more kindly on her reign of error.
Second, the overwhelming favorite to succeed her is Republican Rep. Bobby Jindal and it is at least an even-money proposition that the state House of Representatives will get captured by the GOP. Making a state government mainly led for the first time ever after Reconstruction by Republicans deal with any fiscal crisis that would occur – ironically caused by the party that previously monopolized power, the Democrats – would damage politically the GOP in the state, something about which Blanco will not shed many tears.
Third, and most obvious, Blanco believes in some of the items given her political liberalism. Chief among these is a measure making the state give money to tax filers of lower incomes who don’t even owe any state income taxes.
Blanco’s inability to accept she is at the root of many policy failures in the state, her past partisan posturing as well as her insistence that others, not her, are to blame for problems during her governorship that will cause an inordinate focusing on a “legacy,” are disturbing indicators that her veto decisions at least in part will be made on these kinds of political considerations, and not primarily on the basis of what is good for the state’s fiscal picture after she has left office.
In the waning days, even hours, of the just-concluded regular session, a number of bills were passed grating tax breaks that would take effect only after Blanco was out of office. Why don’t they take effect for 2007, if they are so laudable? Because Blanco decreed that she would wield a veto pen to prevent more being taken than $150 million in tax cuts, out of a budgetary surplus of $3.5 billion in a budget that ended up spending about $32 billion. She later averred that she would accept about $180 million and the best estimate that exists for the actual amount applied for this year is $189 million.
But including all tax cuts puts the amount closer to $500 million. If she vetoes none, this implies she expects state revenues to grow by $300 million or so above and beyond inflationary increases at current service levels. It may or may not happen. While tax cuts to a certain point generally eventually provide more government revenue, targeted tax cuts such as these are less effective and it does take time for the economy, spurred by the cuts, to grow. This is why Blanco needed not to spend so much of the surplus on recurring items of dubious need.
Without a great deal of certainty that such revenue increases will materialize (and at this point the best guess is that they are not likely to do so), the prudent thing for Blanco to do would be to disallow them in order to prevent a future fiscal crisis hampering the state’s next governor and legislators. However, she has three incentives to disregard that course of action.
First, to be charitable, Blanco has had a dismal record as governor. She faltered badly in handling the 2005 hurricane disasters and their aftermath, and more generally has done little to improve Louisiana’s quality of life. Going out with a bunch of tax cutting to her credit will raise people’s opinion of her and might cause historians to look more kindly on her reign of error.
Second, the overwhelming favorite to succeed her is Republican Rep. Bobby Jindal and it is at least an even-money proposition that the state House of Representatives will get captured by the GOP. Making a state government mainly led for the first time ever after Reconstruction by Republicans deal with any fiscal crisis that would occur – ironically caused by the party that previously monopolized power, the Democrats – would damage politically the GOP in the state, something about which Blanco will not shed many tears.
Third, and most obvious, Blanco believes in some of the items given her political liberalism. Chief among these is a measure making the state give money to tax filers of lower incomes who don’t even owe any state income taxes.
Blanco’s inability to accept she is at the root of many policy failures in the state, her past partisan posturing as well as her insistence that others, not her, are to blame for problems during her governorship that will cause an inordinate focusing on a “legacy,” are disturbing indicators that her veto decisions at least in part will be made on these kinds of political considerations, and not primarily on the basis of what is good for the state’s fiscal picture after she has left office.
28.6.07
Having, eating cake describes Legislature ethics bill kill
I guess I should have stayed pessimistic instead of looking for a silver lining earlier today. Snatching death from the jaws of life, the Louisiana Legislature managed to kill meaningful ethics reform this afternoon.
HB 730 would have required, at a very minimum, every elected official in the state and then some except for some smallest jurisdictions to report for themselves and from immediate family members some broad categories of income in a process that likely would take 10 minutes to complete – done by state and local elected officials in almost 20 states already. After both houses basically unanimously agreed to versions that were not very different from each other, and three conferees from each chamber agreed on one compromise version, the House rejected the report and the Senate then refused to consider it.
Being so close to agreement, it’s hard to believe it would founder at the last minute. The official excuse given was that, from the House’s perspective, the conference’s stripping application to local elected office – even though both the entire Senate and House had agreed to that – made the bill unpalatable enough.
Removing that procedure in conference appears to have come from conferee Democrat Senate Pres. Don Hines, as a kind of final “up yours” to the state of Louisiana before he is term-limited into a long overdue retirement. Author Democrat state Rep. Michael Jackson told the House he thought the Senate wouldn’t pass the conference version, therefore, even though it had previously, and just enough House members thought they would just as soon, as Jackson said, throw the baby out with the bathwater, in a narrow vote.
It seems so very odd that something the chambers had agreed upon without really any dissent should, on the final day of the session, suddenly become a deal breaker. Why did it out of the blue become a problem? And why would the House prefer to go with no loaf than half a loaf? Wouldn’t reporting requirements on legislators even without local officials be better than none?
Apparently not, and this surface logical disconnect fuels the notion that the fix was in all of the time, at least for enough legislators to cause its failure. Enough of them may have wanted to get a vote in showing they “cared” about higher ethical standards, but then House members could turn around and say they essentially killed the bill because it didn’t “do enough” by removal of the local official provision, while Senators got a free ride. Everybody’s for ethics reform, on the record – and yet there’s no change whatsoever.
This ridiculous ending only adds more tarnish to an already underachieving session – but (again straining to see a silver lining) maybe will cause even more disenchantment among the Louisiana people to elect candidates this fall that will bring about real reform in the near future.
HB 730 would have required, at a very minimum, every elected official in the state and then some except for some smallest jurisdictions to report for themselves and from immediate family members some broad categories of income in a process that likely would take 10 minutes to complete – done by state and local elected officials in almost 20 states already. After both houses basically unanimously agreed to versions that were not very different from each other, and three conferees from each chamber agreed on one compromise version, the House rejected the report and the Senate then refused to consider it.
Being so close to agreement, it’s hard to believe it would founder at the last minute. The official excuse given was that, from the House’s perspective, the conference’s stripping application to local elected office – even though both the entire Senate and House had agreed to that – made the bill unpalatable enough.
Removing that procedure in conference appears to have come from conferee Democrat Senate Pres. Don Hines, as a kind of final “up yours” to the state of Louisiana before he is term-limited into a long overdue retirement. Author Democrat state Rep. Michael Jackson told the House he thought the Senate wouldn’t pass the conference version, therefore, even though it had previously, and just enough House members thought they would just as soon, as Jackson said, throw the baby out with the bathwater, in a narrow vote.
It seems so very odd that something the chambers had agreed upon without really any dissent should, on the final day of the session, suddenly become a deal breaker. Why did it out of the blue become a problem? And why would the House prefer to go with no loaf than half a loaf? Wouldn’t reporting requirements on legislators even without local officials be better than none?
Apparently not, and this surface logical disconnect fuels the notion that the fix was in all of the time, at least for enough legislators to cause its failure. Enough of them may have wanted to get a vote in showing they “cared” about higher ethical standards, but then House members could turn around and say they essentially killed the bill because it didn’t “do enough” by removal of the local official provision, while Senators got a free ride. Everybody’s for ethics reform, on the record – and yet there’s no change whatsoever.
This ridiculous ending only adds more tarnish to an already underachieving session – but (again straining to see a silver lining) maybe will cause even more disenchantment among the Louisiana people to elect candidates this fall that will bring about real reform in the near future.
Session represents another missed opportunity
As the 2007 regular session of the Louisiana Legislature comes to a close, one gets a sick feeling that an opportunity of historical significance was missed by it, one that could have accelerated the state away from policy that for decades has retarded the state’s growth and quality of life. Still, there is a silver lining.
Simply put, Louisiana’s state government is too big and intrusive which dampens economic growth as well as personal freedom in the process. Ultimately, the people must blame themselves to some degree because we in aggregate continue to put economic illiterates such as Gov. Kathleen Blanco and a Democrat majority into office. As if we needed one more example of this, take Blanco’s comment yesterday: “It's important for the public to know that a tax break is like the Legislature's spending money, only it disappears.”
Only an economic ignoramus or willingly deceitful politician would make a statement so at odds with economic theory. Has Blanco never heard of the Grace Report, which shows government wastes a third of the money coming into it? Or of the Laffer Curve, which demonstrates that the more money kept in the private sector, to a certain point (and with Louisiana’s high tax per capita collection rate, it’s definitely on the suboptimized part of the curve) the greater government revenues will be through economic growth?
I’ll lay it out very simply so maybe even Blanco can get it through her head, finally: tax breaks create wealth that (generally, unless there is a low-tax environment to begin with) does not “disappear” but instead strengthens the economy which in turn creates a more stable financial footing for government. Spending by government even on necessary things (like needed infrastructure) is where about a third of the people’s money disappears in waste.
Unfortunately, Blanco and the Democrat-controlled Legislature were in charge and so the most tax relief that anybody looks to be getting will be about half of taxpayers will get about a one percent return of their money taken by the state, despite a record surplus that comprised over 10 percent of the budget for a state growing smaller. Further, spending on recurring commitments will hamstring future elected officials in being able to provide the necessary downsizing of government to create better quality of life.
At least there appears to be one bright spot. With the public in a hostile mood about Louisiana state politicians (evidenced by Blanco’s bowing out of reelection opportunities, current out-party Republicans picking up open positions in special elections, and anybody seen as an incumbent of any kind having a hard time in special elections), some meaningful ethics reform actually seems to have come out of the session. That (unless something dramatic happens before the end of the day) it seems to have beaten long odds shows those legislators running for election in the fall are scared of the public’s antipathy towards the lack of quality of their service. It probably won’t be enough to return many of them to office, however.
Yet in the final analysis, this session fits squarely into the pattern seen in Louisiana state government over the past few decades – squandering yet another opportunity to keep the rest of the world from passing us by. And perhaps the ultimate silver lining is that maybe now the Louisiana electorate will be further incensed by this behavior to make the changes necessary to improve the state in those fall elections.
Simply put, Louisiana’s state government is too big and intrusive which dampens economic growth as well as personal freedom in the process. Ultimately, the people must blame themselves to some degree because we in aggregate continue to put economic illiterates such as Gov. Kathleen Blanco and a Democrat majority into office. As if we needed one more example of this, take Blanco’s comment yesterday: “It's important for the public to know that a tax break is like the Legislature's spending money, only it disappears.”
Only an economic ignoramus or willingly deceitful politician would make a statement so at odds with economic theory. Has Blanco never heard of the Grace Report, which shows government wastes a third of the money coming into it? Or of the Laffer Curve, which demonstrates that the more money kept in the private sector, to a certain point (and with Louisiana’s high tax per capita collection rate, it’s definitely on the suboptimized part of the curve) the greater government revenues will be through economic growth?
I’ll lay it out very simply so maybe even Blanco can get it through her head, finally: tax breaks create wealth that (generally, unless there is a low-tax environment to begin with) does not “disappear” but instead strengthens the economy which in turn creates a more stable financial footing for government. Spending by government even on necessary things (like needed infrastructure) is where about a third of the people’s money disappears in waste.
Unfortunately, Blanco and the Democrat-controlled Legislature were in charge and so the most tax relief that anybody looks to be getting will be about half of taxpayers will get about a one percent return of their money taken by the state, despite a record surplus that comprised over 10 percent of the budget for a state growing smaller. Further, spending on recurring commitments will hamstring future elected officials in being able to provide the necessary downsizing of government to create better quality of life.
At least there appears to be one bright spot. With the public in a hostile mood about Louisiana state politicians (evidenced by Blanco’s bowing out of reelection opportunities, current out-party Republicans picking up open positions in special elections, and anybody seen as an incumbent of any kind having a hard time in special elections), some meaningful ethics reform actually seems to have come out of the session. That (unless something dramatic happens before the end of the day) it seems to have beaten long odds shows those legislators running for election in the fall are scared of the public’s antipathy towards the lack of quality of their service. It probably won’t be enough to return many of them to office, however.
Yet in the final analysis, this session fits squarely into the pattern seen in Louisiana state government over the past few decades – squandering yet another opportunity to keep the rest of the world from passing us by. And perhaps the ultimate silver lining is that maybe now the Louisiana electorate will be further incensed by this behavior to make the changes necessary to improve the state in those fall elections.
27.6.07
Stuck on stupid XXV: Parents told childish Blanco "no"
For most people, when they were young and came into a (relative) financial windfall, be it from gifts or from some kind of labor, their parents instructed them not to go out and blow it on candy or whatever, but to save it. That way, we were instructed, you could invest it and have it grow and ready for the future when you really might need it, instead of spending it on some transitory pleasure.
By contrast, Gov. Kathleen Blanco’s parents must have told her something quite the opposite, if we understand correctly the analogy she tried to use to disparage those who support tax cuts from a huge Louisiana surplus: “I think they're like a bunch of spoiled children, and we're on vacation, kind of, and they think mom and daddy can buy them every single toy and balloon in the whole place. And, you know, parents have to say no after a time.” It indicates just how absolutely, totally clueless she is and has been about good public policy that would improve the quality of life that she personally has retarded in this state for the past four years.
Only Blanco, and her Democrat majority allies in the state Legislature, would conceive of investing in the people of Louisiana as something that should be denied. Only this backwards-thinking mob would think you “invest” in economic development by taking money owned by the people in the first place and instead of letting it stay with the best investment around, the productive capacity of the people and the marketplace, you abscond with it and shovel it into growing government such as by creating more bureaucratic jobs in a state with declining population and funneling tens of millions of dollars to dubious projects.
Of course, this nonsense proceeds from their liberal viewpoint but also has a more immediate precipitant: like spoiled brats, they put themselves first before anybody else because this spending also serves the goal of trying to get themselves elected or reelected and puts their political opponents in a future bind – and to top it off they’re doing it using somebody else’s resources. Only immature children would try to justify this by ignorantly calling it the opposite, or thinking they can twist words trying to fool grownups with this explanation.
Naturally, we see very clearly how the Blanco lexicon equates “tax cuts” with “spending” and “spending” with “investment,” and how this reflects the exact antithesis of the real world. We realize this because we are the parents, and long ago we told the childish perpetrator of this ridiculous attitude and philosophy “no” when it came to her reelection.
By contrast, Gov. Kathleen Blanco’s parents must have told her something quite the opposite, if we understand correctly the analogy she tried to use to disparage those who support tax cuts from a huge Louisiana surplus: “I think they're like a bunch of spoiled children, and we're on vacation, kind of, and they think mom and daddy can buy them every single toy and balloon in the whole place. And, you know, parents have to say no after a time.” It indicates just how absolutely, totally clueless she is and has been about good public policy that would improve the quality of life that she personally has retarded in this state for the past four years.
Only Blanco, and her Democrat majority allies in the state Legislature, would conceive of investing in the people of Louisiana as something that should be denied. Only this backwards-thinking mob would think you “invest” in economic development by taking money owned by the people in the first place and instead of letting it stay with the best investment around, the productive capacity of the people and the marketplace, you abscond with it and shovel it into growing government such as by creating more bureaucratic jobs in a state with declining population and funneling tens of millions of dollars to dubious projects.
Of course, this nonsense proceeds from their liberal viewpoint but also has a more immediate precipitant: like spoiled brats, they put themselves first before anybody else because this spending also serves the goal of trying to get themselves elected or reelected and puts their political opponents in a future bind – and to top it off they’re doing it using somebody else’s resources. Only immature children would try to justify this by ignorantly calling it the opposite, or thinking they can twist words trying to fool grownups with this explanation.
Naturally, we see very clearly how the Blanco lexicon equates “tax cuts” with “spending” and “spending” with “investment,” and how this reflects the exact antithesis of the real world. We realize this because we are the parents, and long ago we told the childish perpetrator of this ridiculous attitude and philosophy “no” when it came to her reelection.
26.6.07
Next governor must save LA from new hospital stupidity
Gov. Kathleen Blanco set the state on an unwise collision course with the federal government regarding the new Big Charity hospital in New Orleans. Let’s hope it’s a decision that doesn’t cost the state hundreds of millions of dollars in wasted spending.
Over the weekend, Blanco’s allies in the Louisiana Legislature confirmed that the state was going to forgo federal money, at least about $225 million, to build the new facility, because it would involve too much “red tape” – created by the state’s own intransigence. The bureaucracy involved came as a result of the federal government’s questioning the scope of the planned new facility whose price tag has doubled within the past year.
In large part that happened because of different concepts in how the provision of indigent care was to occur. All parties want the new Medical Center of Louisiana – New Orleans facility to provide medical education capacity and specialized health care services. But others want to go beyond that just that, all relating to their different views on how indigent health care should be delivered in the state.
Every other state in the union follows a strategy of money-follows-the-person for indigent health care, but Louisiana insists on a money-goes-to-the-institution strategy which limits patient choice, reduces quality of care, and costs more. Even so, many political elites and special interests in the state want the latter because it brings more money into state government, increases the number of people on the state payroll, and gives them more power and privilege as a result – much more than they care about efficiency and outcomes.
Blanco’s team suggested building a large facility because it has no intention to switching to a more efficient system with improved outcomes – and even conjured a study assuming the state stuck with the existing system to try to justify the decision. If the switch was made, the hundred or more extra beds under Blanco’s plan would become superfluous – as suggested by the federal government last week in its note announcing postponement in turning over the money the state has qualified for purposes such as this.
So Blanco read the writing on the wall – reform or the money wasn’t forthcoming – and stubbornly gave up the money. This became politically possible when Blanco ally Sen. Mary Landrieu extracted a promise from Democrats in Washington that the federal government would commit substantial aid to Blanco’s mishandled Road Home Program if the state coughed up $1 billion towards the potential $5 billion shortfall. Having cobbled together over $600 million of federal money that technically had become state funds, and a small amount of genuine state funds, Blanco realized the $225 million for the hospital could be used for this purpose as well.
This still left money short for the complex, so now the state will borrow it in future years. In essence, the state would have had to come up with the $225 million one way or another for the Road Home bailout anyway so now the only extra cost to the state will be on interest for the borrowed money (which the state could not have done for the bailout because borrowing can be done only for capital outlay). It’s a politically neat solution.
Except that, first of all, the extra beds are wasteful, either because they can be done without under an efficient new system, or because they will prop up the existing inefficient system. Second, the state’s act of defiance will not go unnoticed in another part of the government which still can cost the state plenty. All along, the assumption has been the new facility will be built next to a new Veterans Administration hospital which would share some facilities, saving both money. But the federal government has been making noises that this arrangement may no longer suit it, and the state’s decision here well may solidify a decision to go separate ways, jacking up costs to the state even more.
However, one hope remains. The Legislature classified the borrowing as future, meaning it can be altered in future capital outlay budgets and the whole amount, now believed to be $1.5 billion, is not yet in the budget. This means the next administration will have the final say – and you can bet a Gov. Bobby Jindal is not going to go along with this plan. So, just as political tides and fortunes put the wrong people in the wrong place at the wrong time to create this boondoggle, they may reverse to alter eventually the big mistake Blanco and her cronies are making on this issue – to the delight of the indigent and taxpayers statewide.
Over the weekend, Blanco’s allies in the Louisiana Legislature confirmed that the state was going to forgo federal money, at least about $225 million, to build the new facility, because it would involve too much “red tape” – created by the state’s own intransigence. The bureaucracy involved came as a result of the federal government’s questioning the scope of the planned new facility whose price tag has doubled within the past year.
In large part that happened because of different concepts in how the provision of indigent care was to occur. All parties want the new Medical Center of Louisiana – New Orleans facility to provide medical education capacity and specialized health care services. But others want to go beyond that just that, all relating to their different views on how indigent health care should be delivered in the state.
Every other state in the union follows a strategy of money-follows-the-person for indigent health care, but Louisiana insists on a money-goes-to-the-institution strategy which limits patient choice, reduces quality of care, and costs more. Even so, many political elites and special interests in the state want the latter because it brings more money into state government, increases the number of people on the state payroll, and gives them more power and privilege as a result – much more than they care about efficiency and outcomes.
Blanco’s team suggested building a large facility because it has no intention to switching to a more efficient system with improved outcomes – and even conjured a study assuming the state stuck with the existing system to try to justify the decision. If the switch was made, the hundred or more extra beds under Blanco’s plan would become superfluous – as suggested by the federal government last week in its note announcing postponement in turning over the money the state has qualified for purposes such as this.
So Blanco read the writing on the wall – reform or the money wasn’t forthcoming – and stubbornly gave up the money. This became politically possible when Blanco ally Sen. Mary Landrieu extracted a promise from Democrats in Washington that the federal government would commit substantial aid to Blanco’s mishandled Road Home Program if the state coughed up $1 billion towards the potential $5 billion shortfall. Having cobbled together over $600 million of federal money that technically had become state funds, and a small amount of genuine state funds, Blanco realized the $225 million for the hospital could be used for this purpose as well.
This still left money short for the complex, so now the state will borrow it in future years. In essence, the state would have had to come up with the $225 million one way or another for the Road Home bailout anyway so now the only extra cost to the state will be on interest for the borrowed money (which the state could not have done for the bailout because borrowing can be done only for capital outlay). It’s a politically neat solution.
Except that, first of all, the extra beds are wasteful, either because they can be done without under an efficient new system, or because they will prop up the existing inefficient system. Second, the state’s act of defiance will not go unnoticed in another part of the government which still can cost the state plenty. All along, the assumption has been the new facility will be built next to a new Veterans Administration hospital which would share some facilities, saving both money. But the federal government has been making noises that this arrangement may no longer suit it, and the state’s decision here well may solidify a decision to go separate ways, jacking up costs to the state even more.
However, one hope remains. The Legislature classified the borrowing as future, meaning it can be altered in future capital outlay budgets and the whole amount, now believed to be $1.5 billion, is not yet in the budget. This means the next administration will have the final say – and you can bet a Gov. Bobby Jindal is not going to go along with this plan. So, just as political tides and fortunes put the wrong people in the wrong place at the wrong time to create this boondoggle, they may reverse to alter eventually the big mistake Blanco and her cronies are making on this issue – to the delight of the indigent and taxpayers statewide.
24.6.07
NW LA delegation has some I-49 funding explaining to do
Over the past few days, behind the scenes occurred a great example of the minute machinations with major consequences that go on with legislation in front of the Louisiana Legislature – almost totally obscured from public understanding. You want to bet that at least a few legislators involved are not going to want these events to have to be explained as they run for election this fall?
The much-discussed HB 765 which spent basically one-time funds and some federal funds refunded to Louisiana was discussed in front of the House Friday. In this bill, $150 million had been set aside for highway construction.
On the floor, Shreveport state Rep. Roy Burrell (with Shreveport Rep. Ernest Baylor) offered an amendment to direct $60 million of that to the construction of I-49 and an environmental impact study of the route of it going through Shreveport. He must have meant it to be for the proposed I-49 north route covering mostly existing U.S. 71 and may have thought the study funding request made that obvious. Without objection it was done.
But not long afterward, Bossier state Rep. Billy Montgomery (also endorsed by others including area Reps. Wayne Waddell, Jim Morris, and Jane Smith) offered another amendment that said of the $150 million, $100 million could be spent only on interstate projects on the Highway Priority Program list – which apparently didn’t include I-49. This also was adopted without objection.
Of course, there’s a conflict here. Backing out $100 million from $150 million left only $50 million for the $60 million proposal for “I-49” and the study. And apparently House rules would give precedence to the temporally later amendment when such a conflict exists. In other words, the Montgomery amendment vetoed in essence the Burrell amendment.
Then today, that got corrected in amendments 16-20 made in the Senate Finance Committee of whom its members include area state Sens. Sherri Smith Cheek and Lydia Jackson. The $100 million amount was reduced to $90 million, clearing up the conflict and it was made more specific in regards to allocating the money to I-49 north work.
This leads to some interesting questions:
Was Burrell’s and Baylor’s poor wording a mistake on their part?
If so, why wasn’t it corrected by the later amendment, or one by them?
Why would Montgomery et. al.’s amendment seem to sabotage something the northwest Louisiana delegation has given considerable lip service to, funding of I-49 (Smith even told a constituent that the reason she bailed out on GOP resistance to increase spending was to secure this money)?
Again, was this simply a mistake or was another agenda at work? (Perhaps the language was offered by the non-northwest members who signed on while the northwest members were interested in the other part of the amendment, getting state funding for a proposed Air Force cyber command consolidation at Barksdale Air Force Base – meaning they fell for a trap.)
The crisis for I-49 north funding has passed but the questions remain. In their published comments, both Montgomery and Smith seemed unaware that the amendment had canceled the money going to “I-49,” so it seems inattentiveness on their part was to blame. (Montgomery also ripped another area legislator, Rep. Mike Powell, for not voting for the bill and, in essence, the $60 million mistake he had created.) Montgomery has been there 20 years and Smith 8 and don’t seem to have it down yet. No doubt their opponents thins fall will remind area voters of that.
The much-discussed HB 765 which spent basically one-time funds and some federal funds refunded to Louisiana was discussed in front of the House Friday. In this bill, $150 million had been set aside for highway construction.
On the floor, Shreveport state Rep. Roy Burrell (with Shreveport Rep. Ernest Baylor) offered an amendment to direct $60 million of that to the construction of I-49 and an environmental impact study of the route of it going through Shreveport. He must have meant it to be for the proposed I-49 north route covering mostly existing U.S. 71 and may have thought the study funding request made that obvious. Without objection it was done.
But not long afterward, Bossier state Rep. Billy Montgomery (also endorsed by others including area Reps. Wayne Waddell, Jim Morris, and Jane Smith) offered another amendment that said of the $150 million, $100 million could be spent only on interstate projects on the Highway Priority Program list – which apparently didn’t include I-49. This also was adopted without objection.
Of course, there’s a conflict here. Backing out $100 million from $150 million left only $50 million for the $60 million proposal for “I-49” and the study. And apparently House rules would give precedence to the temporally later amendment when such a conflict exists. In other words, the Montgomery amendment vetoed in essence the Burrell amendment.
Then today, that got corrected in amendments 16-20 made in the Senate Finance Committee of whom its members include area state Sens. Sherri Smith Cheek and Lydia Jackson. The $100 million amount was reduced to $90 million, clearing up the conflict and it was made more specific in regards to allocating the money to I-49 north work.
This leads to some interesting questions:
The crisis for I-49 north funding has passed but the questions remain. In their published comments, both Montgomery and Smith seemed unaware that the amendment had canceled the money going to “I-49,” so it seems inattentiveness on their part was to blame. (Montgomery also ripped another area legislator, Rep. Mike Powell, for not voting for the bill and, in essence, the $60 million mistake he had created.) Montgomery has been there 20 years and Smith 8 and don’t seem to have it down yet. No doubt their opponents thins fall will remind area voters of that.
22.6.07
Strange budgeting may cost disabled, roads, citizenry
It’s a half-year to Christmas, but the Louisiana House of Representatives constructed a Christmas tree bill in an attempt to save the essence of one bill that might end up bringing down another good idea – a rescue needed only because of stupid spending priorities.
SB 98 started out as a bill to fund the New Opportunities Waiver program. This would create a stable funding mechanism these transfer payments to people who have serious disabilities yet are able to live outside of institutions. It would end up saving money for the state because institutionalization of these folks is more expensive and almost always paid by the state because the costs of care entirely strips most families of their assets and essentially makes them wards of the state. Currently, nearly 15,000 individuals remain on a waiting list for an opportunity to get a waiver.
But while the House was in session, over in the Senate the Finance Committee postponed action on HB 722, which would ensure that any funds collected from transportation-related taxes and fees would be spent only on transportation capital items (86 percent priority highway projects). This would free up almost $320 million a year to tackle a roads backlog relatively even greater than the NOW backlog of $14 billion and at the rate of growth of revenues statewide by next year the $370 million cost would be made up.
SB 98 started out as a bill to fund the New Opportunities Waiver program. This would create a stable funding mechanism these transfer payments to people who have serious disabilities yet are able to live outside of institutions. It would end up saving money for the state because institutionalization of these folks is more expensive and almost always paid by the state because the costs of care entirely strips most families of their assets and essentially makes them wards of the state. Currently, nearly 15,000 individuals remain on a waiting list for an opportunity to get a waiver.
But while the House was in session, over in the Senate the Finance Committee postponed action on HB 722, which would ensure that any funds collected from transportation-related taxes and fees would be spent only on transportation capital items (86 percent priority highway projects). This would free up almost $320 million a year to tackle a roads backlog relatively even greater than the NOW backlog of $14 billion and at the rate of growth of revenues statewide by next year the $370 million cost would be made up.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)